The collective and transgenerational madness of circumcision1 finds delirious means of expression:
“But the mohel (circumciser) with whom I had worked countless times suddenly handed me the knife. He pointed to my squirming son, whose hands and legs were tied to the board. The foreskin had been pulled up over the glans of the penis and was now protruding through a narrow slit of the small, stainless steel clamp… 'It's the greatest honor a father can have,' he added… There is no greater primal anger than that caused by seeing another male in carnal contact with your wife, in this case, the physical intimacy of mother and son. And there is no greater primal envy than that caused by looking down at the person who was brought into the world specifically to be your survivor… The breast provides, but the knife protects. It channels the father's natural anger and jealousy into one controlled cut. He takes off one small part in order to preserve -and love - the whole… No father should be denied this experience, even vicariously, of inflicting upon his child a ritualized blow so intense as to make him both shake and recoil…”2
That apology of a sadism blind to the suffering of the tortured child makes one's hair stand on end; it does not shy away from masking pedosexual criminality behind concerns of kitchen-psychology. Praising a pathological jealousy of the father watching his son suckling is a vile, unnatural and inhuman lunacy.
The wording: "another man" in order to designate the suckling baby, the small phrase: "The breast provides, but the knife protects.", are characteristic of a shameless delirium which considers the baby a rival.
As for the "carnal" and "intimate" contact, what about the passage of the child through the vagina…? Shouldn’t the adulterous wife be divorced?
That delirium well shows that many, among the circumcised – logically enough besides – fail to resolve their Oedipus complex and ignore the natural laws of existence.
Nevertheless, we may think that the mohel acted so because, unconsciously, he did not want to perpetrate that atrocious crime.
It is aberrant that the New York Times Magazine should have published such an insane speech; it is not less aberrant than the verse of the Bible that ascribes to God to have ordered Abraham to torture eight-day-old babies to mutilate them.
2 Joshua J. Hammerman. Birth Rite. The New York Times Magazine, March 13, 1994.